how to do a hypothesis without using first person

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Science Writing

How to Write a Hypothesis

Last Updated: May 2, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Bess Ruff, MA . Bess Ruff is a Geography PhD student at Florida State University. She received her MA in Environmental Science and Management from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2016. She has conducted survey work for marine spatial planning projects in the Caribbean and provided research support as a graduate fellow for the Sustainable Fisheries Group. There are 9 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 1,032,730 times.

A hypothesis is a description of a pattern in nature or an explanation about some real-world phenomenon that can be tested through observation and experimentation. The most common way a hypothesis is used in scientific research is as a tentative, testable, and falsifiable statement that explains some observed phenomenon in nature. [1] X Research source Many academic fields, from the physical sciences to the life sciences to the social sciences, use hypothesis testing as a means of testing ideas to learn about the world and advance scientific knowledge. Whether you are a beginning scholar or a beginning student taking a class in a science subject, understanding what hypotheses are and being able to generate hypotheses and predictions yourself is very important. These instructions will help get you started.

Preparing to Write a Hypothesis

• If you are writing a hypothesis for a school assignment, this step may be taken care of for you.

• Focus on academic and scholarly writing. You need to be certain that your information is unbiased, accurate, and comprehensive. Scholarly search databases such as Google Scholar and Web of Science can help you find relevant articles from reputable sources.
• You can find information in textbooks, at a library, and online. If you are in school, you can also ask for help from teachers, librarians, and your peers.

• For example, if you are interested in the effects of caffeine on the human body, but notice that nobody seems to have explored whether caffeine affects males differently than it does females, this could be something to formulate a hypothesis about. Or, if you are interested in organic farming, you might notice that no one has tested whether organic fertilizer results in different growth rates for plants than non-organic fertilizer.
• You can sometimes find holes in the existing literature by looking for statements like “it is unknown” in scientific papers or places where information is clearly missing. You might also find a claim in the literature that seems far-fetched, unlikely, or too good to be true, like that caffeine improves math skills. If the claim is testable, you could provide a great service to scientific knowledge by doing your own investigation. If you confirm the claim, the claim becomes even more credible. If you do not find support for the claim, you are helping with the necessary self-correcting aspect of science.
• Examining these types of questions provides an excellent way for you to set yourself apart by filling in important gaps in a field of study.

• Following the examples above, you might ask: "How does caffeine affect females as compared to males?" or "How does organic fertilizer affect plant growth compared to non-organic fertilizer?" The rest of your research will be aimed at answering these questions.

• Following the examples above, if you discover in the literature that there is a pattern that some other types of stimulants seem to affect females more than males, this could be a clue that the same pattern might be true for caffeine. Similarly, if you observe the pattern that organic fertilizer seems to be associated with smaller plants overall, you might explain this pattern with the hypothesis that plants exposed to organic fertilizer grow more slowly than plants exposed to non-organic fertilizer.

Formulating Your Hypothesis

• You can think of the independent variable as the one that is causing some kind of difference or effect to occur. In the examples, the independent variable would be biological sex, i.e. whether a person is male or female, and fertilizer type, i.e. whether the fertilizer is organic or non-organically-based.
• The dependent variable is what is affected by (i.e. "depends" on) the independent variable. In the examples above, the dependent variable would be the measured impact of caffeine or fertilizer.
• Your hypothesis should only suggest one relationship. Most importantly, it should only have one independent variable. If you have more than one, you won't be able to determine which one is actually the source of any effects you might observe.

• Don't worry too much at this point about being precise or detailed.
• In the examples above, one hypothesis would make a statement about whether a person's biological sex might impact the way the person is affected by caffeine; for example, at this point, your hypothesis might simply be: "a person's biological sex is related to how caffeine affects his or her heart rate." The other hypothesis would make a general statement about plant growth and fertilizer; for example your simple explanatory hypothesis might be "plants given different types of fertilizer are different sizes because they grow at different rates."

• Using our example, our non-directional hypotheses would be "there is a relationship between a person's biological sex and how much caffeine increases the person's heart rate," and "there is a relationship between fertilizer type and the speed at which plants grow."
• Directional predictions using the same example hypotheses above would be : "Females will experience a greater increase in heart rate after consuming caffeine than will males," and "plants fertilized with non-organic fertilizer will grow faster than those fertilized with organic fertilizer." Indeed, these predictions and the hypotheses that allow for them are very different kinds of statements. More on this distinction below.
• If the literature provides any basis for making a directional prediction, it is better to do so, because it provides more information. Especially in the physical sciences, non-directional predictions are often seen as inadequate.

• Where necessary, specify the population (i.e. the people or things) about which you hope to uncover new knowledge. For example, if you were only interested the effects of caffeine on elderly people, your prediction might read: "Females over the age of 65 will experience a greater increase in heart rate than will males of the same age." If you were interested only in how fertilizer affects tomato plants, your prediction might read: "Tomato plants treated with non-organic fertilizer will grow faster in the first three months than will tomato plants treated with organic fertilizer."

• For example, you would not want to make the hypothesis: "red is the prettiest color." This statement is an opinion and it cannot be tested with an experiment. However, proposing the generalizing hypothesis that red is the most popular color is testable with a simple random survey. If you do indeed confirm that red is the most popular color, your next step may be to ask: Why is red the most popular color? The answer you propose is your explanatory hypothesis .

• An easy way to get to the hypothesis for this method and prediction is to ask yourself why you think heart rates will increase if children are given caffeine. Your explanatory hypothesis in this case may be that caffeine is a stimulant. At this point, some scientists write a research hypothesis , a statement that includes the hypothesis, the experiment, and the prediction all in one statement.
• For example, If caffeine is a stimulant, and some children are given a drink with caffeine while others are given a drink without caffeine, then the heart rates of those children given a caffeinated drink will increase more than the heart rate of children given a non-caffeinated drink.

• Using the above example, if you were to test the effects of caffeine on the heart rates of children, evidence that your hypothesis is not true, sometimes called the null hypothesis , could occur if the heart rates of both the children given the caffeinated drink and the children given the non-caffeinated drink (called the placebo control) did not change, or lowered or raised with the same magnitude, if there was no difference between the two groups of children.
• It is important to note here that the null hypothesis actually becomes much more useful when researchers test the significance of their results with statistics. When statistics are used on the results of an experiment, a researcher is testing the idea of the null statistical hypothesis. For example, that there is no relationship between two variables or that there is no difference between two groups. [8] X Research source

Hypothesis Examples

Community Q&A

• Remember that science is not necessarily a linear process and can be approached in various ways. [10] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• When examining the literature, look for research that is similar to what you want to do, and try to build on the findings of other researchers. But also look for claims that you think are suspicious, and test them yourself. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Be specific in your hypotheses, but not so specific that your hypothesis can't be applied to anything outside your specific experiment. You definitely want to be clear about the population about which you are interested in drawing conclusions, but nobody (except your roommates) will be interested in reading a paper with the prediction: "my three roommates will each be able to do a different amount of pushups." Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://undsci.berkeley.edu/for-educators/prepare-and-plan/correcting-misconceptions/#a4
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/research_papers/choosing_a_topic.html
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_the_social_sciences/writing_in_psychology_experimental_report_writing/experimental_reports_1.html
• ↑ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/how-to-write-a-hypothesis/
• ↑ https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/for-students-and-parents/how-create-hypothesis.html
• ↑ https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/1.19/primary/lesson/hypothesis-ms-ps/
• ↑ https://iastate.pressbooks.pub/preparingtopublish/chapter/goal-1-contextualize-the-studys-methods/
• ↑ http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NullHypothesis.html
• ↑ http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/scienceflowchart

About This Article

Before writing a hypothesis, think of what questions are still unanswered about a specific subject and make an educated guess about what the answer could be. Then, determine the variables in your question and write a simple statement about how they might be related. Try to focus on specific predictions and variables, such as age or segment of the population, to make your hypothesis easier to test. For tips on how to test your hypothesis, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Onyia Maxwell

Sep 13, 2016

Did this article help you?

Nov 26, 2017

ABEL SHEWADEG

Jun 12, 2018

Connor Gilligan

Jan 2, 2017

Dec 30, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more variables . An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls. A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Step 1: ask a question.

Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.

Step 2: Do some preliminary research

Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalise more complex constructs.

Step 3: Formulate your hypothesis

Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.

Step 4: Refine your hypothesis

You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:

• The relevant variables
• The specific group being studied
• The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis

Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if … then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.

In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.

If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.

Step 6. Write a null hypothesis

If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

A hypothesis is not just a guess. It should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (‘ x affects y because …’).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses. In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, May 06). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 6 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/hypothesis-writing/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, operationalisation | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.4: Developing a Hypothesis

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 16104

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
• Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
• Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis it is important to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. A theory is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition. He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observation before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this if-then relationship. “ If drive theory is correct, then cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this question is an interesting one on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [1] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the number of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how easily they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). A researcher begins with a set of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, he or she reevaluates the theory in light of the new results and revises it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researcher can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As Figure 2.2 shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [2] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans (Zajonc & Sales, 1966) [3] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use inductive reasoning which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be positive. That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that really it does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

Key Takeaways

• A theory is broad in nature and explains larger bodies of data. A hypothesis is more specific and makes a prediction about the outcome of a particular study.
• Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
• Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories, test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.
• Practice: Find a recent empirical research report in a professional journal. Read the introduction and highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202.
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92.
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168.

Learn How To Write A Hypothesis For Your Next Research Project!

Undoubtedly, research plays a crucial role in substantiating or refuting our assumptions. These assumptions act as potential answers to our questions. Such assumptions, also known as hypotheses, are considered key aspects of research. In this blog, we delve into the significance of hypotheses. And provide insights on how to write them effectively. So, let’s dive in and explore the art of writing hypotheses together.

Table of Contents

What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a crucial starting point in scientific research. It is an educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables. In other words, a hypothesis acts as a foundation for a researcher to build their study.

Here are some examples of well-crafted hypotheses:

• Increased exposure to natural sunlight improves sleep quality in adults.

A positive relationship between natural sunlight exposure and sleep quality in adult individuals.

• Playing puzzle games on a regular basis enhances problem-solving abilities in children.

Engaging in frequent puzzle gameplay leads to improved problem-solving skills in children.

• Students and improved learning hecks.

S tudents using online  paper writing service  platforms (as a learning tool for receiving personalized feedback and guidance) will demonstrate improved writing skills. (compared to those who do not utilize such platforms).

• The use of APA format in research papers. 

Using the  APA format  helps students stay organized when writing research papers. Organized students can focus better on their topics and, as a result, produce better quality work.

The Building Blocks of a Hypothesis

To better understand the concept of a hypothesis, let’s break it down into its basic components:

• Variables . A hypothesis involves at least two variables. An independent variable and a dependent variable. The independent variable is the one being changed or manipulated, while the dependent variable is the one being measured or observed.
• Relationship : A hypothesis proposes a relationship or connection between the variables. This could be a cause-and-effect relationship or a correlation between them.
• Testability : A hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable, meaning it can be proven right or wrong through experimentation or observation.

Types of Hypotheses

When learning how to write a hypothesis, it’s essential to understand its main types. These include; alternative hypotheses and null hypotheses. In the following section, we explore both types of hypotheses with examples. 

Alternative Hypothesis (H1)

This kind of hypothesis suggests a relationship or effect between the variables. It is the main focus of the study. The researcher wants to either prove or disprove it. Many research divides this hypothesis into two subsections: 

• Directional 

This type of H1 predicts a specific outcome. Many researchers use this hypothesis to explore the relationship between variables rather than the groups. 

• Non-directional

You can take a guess from the name. This type of H1 does not provide a specific prediction for the research outcome. 

Here are some examples for your better understanding of how to write a hypothesis.

• Consuming caffeine improves cognitive performance.  (This hypothesis predicts that there is a positive relationship between caffeine consumption and cognitive performance.)
• Aerobic exercise leads to reduced blood pressure.  (This hypothesis suggests that engaging in aerobic exercise results in lower blood pressure readings.)
• Exposure to nature reduces stress levels among employees.  (Here, the hypothesis proposes that employees exposed to natural environments will experience decreased stress levels.)
• Listening to classical music while studying increases memory retention.  (This hypothesis speculates that studying with classical music playing in the background boosts students’ ability to retain information.)
• Early literacy intervention improves reading skills in children.  (This hypothesis claims that providing early literacy assistance to children results in enhanced reading abilities.)
• Time management in nursing students. ( Students who use a  nursing research paper writing service  have more time to focus on their studies and can achieve better grades in other subjects. )

Null Hypothesis (H0)

A null hypothesis assumes no relationship or effect between the variables. If the alternative hypothesis is proven to be false, the null hypothesis is considered to be true. Usually a null hypothesis shows no direct correlation between the defined variables. 

Here are some of the examples

• The consumption of herbal tea has no effect on sleep quality.  (This hypothesis assumes that herbal tea consumption does not impact the quality of sleep.)
• The number of hours spent playing video games is unrelated to academic performance.  (Here, the null hypothesis suggests that no relationship exists between video gameplay duration and academic achievement.)
• Implementing flexible work schedules has no influence on employee job satisfaction.  (This hypothesis contends that providing flexible schedules does not affect how satisfied employees are with their jobs.)
• Writing ability of a 7th grader is not affected by reading editorial example. ( There is no relationship between reading an  editorial example  and improving a 7th grader’s writing abilities.) 
• The type of lighting in a room does not affect people’s mood.  (In this null hypothesis, there is no connection between the kind of lighting in a room and the mood of those present.)
• The use of social media during break time does not impact productivity at work.  (This hypothesis proposes that social media usage during breaks has no effect on work productivity.)

As you learn how to write a hypothesis, remember that aiming for clarity, testability, and relevance to your research question is vital. By mastering this skill, you’re well on your way to conducting impactful scientific research. Good luck!

Importance of a Hypothesis in Research

A well-structured hypothesis is a vital part of any research project for several reasons:

• It provides clear direction for the study by setting its focus and purpose.
• It outlines expectations of the research, making it easier to measure results.
• It helps identify any potential limitations in the study, allowing researchers to refine their approach.

In conclusion, a hypothesis plays a fundamental role in the research process. By understanding its concept and constructing a well-thought-out hypothesis, researchers lay the groundwork for a successful, scientifically sound investigation.

How to Write a Hypothesis?

Here are five steps that you can follow to write an effective hypothesis. 

Step 1: Identify Your Research Question

The first step in learning how to compose a hypothesis is to clearly define your research question. This question is the central focus of your study and will help you determine the direction of your hypothesis.

Step 2: Determine the Variables

When exploring how to write a hypothesis, it’s crucial to identify the variables involved in your study. You’ll need at least two variables:

• Independent variable : The factor you manipulate or change in your experiment.
• Dependent variable : The outcome or result you observe or measure, which is influenced by the independent variable.

Step 3: Build the Hypothetical Relationship

In understanding how to compose a hypothesis, constructing the relationship between the variables is key. Based on your research question and variables, predict the expected outcome or connection. This prediction should be specific, testable, and, if possible, expressed in the “If…then” format.

Step 4: Write the Null Hypothesis

When mastering how to write a hypothesis, it’s important to create a null hypothesis as well. The null hypothesis assumes no relationship or effect between the variables, acting as a counterpoint to your primary hypothesis.

Step 5: Review Your Hypothesis

Finally, when learning how to compose a hypothesis, it’s essential to review your hypothesis for clarity, testability, and relevance to your research question. Make any necessary adjustments to ensure it provides a solid basis for your study.

In conclusion, understanding how to write a hypothesis is crucial for conducting successful scientific research. By focusing on your research question and carefully building relationships between variables, you will lay a strong foundation for advancing research and knowledge in your field.

Hypothesis vs. Prediction: What’s the Difference?

Understanding the differences between a hypothesis and a prediction is crucial in scientific research. Often, these terms are used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings and functions. This segment aims to clarify these differences and explain how to compose a hypothesis correctly, helping you improve the quality of your research projects.

Hypothesis: The Foundation of Your Research

A hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables. It provides the basis for your research question and is a starting point for an experiment or observational study.

The critical elements for a hypothesis include:

• Specificity: A clear and concise statement that describes the relationship between variables.
• Testability: The ability to test the hypothesis through experimentation or observation.

To learn how to write a hypothesis, it’s essential to identify your research question first and then predict the relationship between the variables.

Prediction: The Expected Outcome

A prediction is a statement about a specific outcome you expect to see in your experiment or observational study. It’s derived from the hypothesis and provides a measurable way to test the relationship between variables.

Here’s an example of how to write a hypothesis and a related prediction:

• Hypothesis: Consuming a high-sugar diet leads to weight gain.
• Prediction: People who consume a high-sugar diet for six weeks will gain more weight than those who maintain a low-sugar diet during the same period.

Key Differences Between a Hypothesis and a Prediction

While a hypothesis and prediction are both essential components of scientific research, there are some key differences to keep in mind:

• A hypothesis is an educated guess that suggests a relationship between variables, while a prediction is a specific and measurable outcome based on that hypothesis.
• A hypothesis can give rise to multiple experiment or observational study predictions.

To conclude, understanding the differences between a hypothesis and a prediction, and learning how to write a hypothesis, are essential steps to form a robust foundation for your research. By creating clear, testable hypotheses along with specific, measurable predictions, you lay the groundwork for scientifically sound investigations.

Here’s a wrap-up for this guide on how to write a hypothesis. We’re confident this article was helpful for many of you. We understand that many students struggle with writing their school research . However, we hope to continue assisting you through our blog tutorial on writing different aspects of academic assignments.

For further information, you can check out our reverent blog or contact our professionals to avail amazing writing services. Paper perk experts tailor assignments to reflect your unique voice and perspectives. Our professionals make sure to stick around till your satisfaction. So what are you waiting for? Pick your required service and order away!

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

• A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
• It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
• A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
• Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
• For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
• Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

• Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.

• Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
• However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

• Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
• Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
• Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
• Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
• Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

• The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
• The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

• Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
• Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
• Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
• Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
• Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
• Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
• Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
• Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

How to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

The story of a research study begins by asking a question. Researchers all around the globe are asking curious questions and formulating research hypothesis. However, whether the research study provides an effective conclusion depends on how well one develops a good research hypothesis. Research hypothesis examples could help researchers get an idea as to how to write a good research hypothesis.

This blog will help you understand what is a research hypothesis, its characteristics and, how to formulate a research hypothesis

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

Hypothesis is an assumption or an idea proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested. It is a precise, testable statement of what the researchers predict will be outcome of the study.  Hypothesis usually involves proposing a relationship between two variables: the independent variable (what the researchers change) and the dependent variable (what the research measures).

What is a Research Hypothesis?

Research hypothesis is a statement that introduces a research question and proposes an expected result. It is an integral part of the scientific method that forms the basis of scientific experiments. Therefore, you need to be careful and thorough when building your research hypothesis. A minor flaw in the construction of your hypothesis could have an adverse effect on your experiment. In research, there is a convention that the hypothesis is written in two forms, the null hypothesis, and the alternative hypothesis (called the experimental hypothesis when the method of investigation is an experiment).

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

As the hypothesis is specific, there is a testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. You may consider drawing hypothesis from previously published research based on the theory.

A good research hypothesis involves more effort than just a guess. In particular, your hypothesis may begin with a question that could be further explored through background research.

To help you formulate a promising research hypothesis, you should ask yourself the following questions:

• Is the language clear and focused?
• What is the relationship between your hypothesis and your research topic?
• Is your hypothesis testable? If yes, then how?
• What are the possible explanations that you might want to explore?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate your variables without hampering the ethical standards?
• Does your research predict the relationship and outcome?
• Is your research simple and concise (avoids wordiness)?
• Is it clear with no ambiguity or assumptions about the readers’ knowledge
• Is your research observable and testable results?
• Is it relevant and specific to the research question or problem?

The questions listed above can be used as a checklist to make sure your hypothesis is based on a solid foundation. Furthermore, it can help you identify weaknesses in your hypothesis and revise it if necessary.

Source: Educational Hub

How to formulate a research hypothesis.

A testable hypothesis is not a simple statement. It is rather an intricate statement that needs to offer a clear introduction to a scientific experiment, its intentions, and the possible outcomes. However, there are some important things to consider when building a compelling hypothesis.

1. State the problem that you are trying to solve.

Make sure that the hypothesis clearly defines the topic and the focus of the experiment.

2. Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement.

Follow this template: If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.

3. Define the variables

Independent variables are the ones that are manipulated, controlled, or changed. Independent variables are isolated from other factors of the study.

Dependent variables , as the name suggests are dependent on other factors of the study. They are influenced by the change in independent variable.

4. Scrutinize the hypothesis

Evaluate assumptions, predictions, and evidence rigorously to refine your understanding.

Types of Research Hypothesis

The types of research hypothesis are stated below:

1. Simple Hypothesis

It predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable.

2. Complex Hypothesis

It predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables.

3. Directional Hypothesis

It specifies the expected direction to be followed to determine the relationship between variables and is derived from theory. Furthermore, it implies the researcher’s intellectual commitment to a particular outcome.

4. Non-directional Hypothesis

It does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables. The non-directional hypothesis is used when there is no theory involved or when findings contradict previous research.

5. Associative and Causal Hypothesis

The associative hypothesis defines interdependency between variables. A change in one variable results in the change of the other variable. On the other hand, the causal hypothesis proposes an effect on the dependent due to manipulation of the independent variable.

6. Null Hypothesis

Null hypothesis states a negative statement to support the researcher’s findings that there is no relationship between two variables. There will be no changes in the dependent variable due the manipulation of the independent variable. Furthermore, it states results are due to chance and are not significant in terms of supporting the idea being investigated.

7. Alternative Hypothesis

It states that there is a relationship between the two variables of the study and that the results are significant to the research topic. An experimental hypothesis predicts what changes will take place in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated. Also, it states that the results are not due to chance and that they are significant in terms of supporting the theory being investigated.

Research Hypothesis Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables

Research Hypothesis Example 1 The greater number of coal plants in a region (independent variable) increases water pollution (dependent variable). If you change the independent variable (building more coal factories), it will change the dependent variable (amount of water pollution).

Research Hypothesis Example 2 What is the effect of diet or regular soda (independent variable) on blood sugar levels (dependent variable)? If you change the independent variable (the type of soda you consume), it will change the dependent variable (blood sugar levels)

You should not ignore the importance of the above steps. The validity of your experiment and its results rely on a robust testable hypothesis. Developing a strong testable hypothesis has few advantages, it compels us to think intensely and specifically about the outcomes of a study. Consequently, it enables us to understand the implication of the question and the different variables involved in the study. Furthermore, it helps us to make precise predictions based on prior research. Hence, forming a hypothesis would be of great value to the research. Here are some good examples of testable hypotheses.

More importantly, you need to build a robust testable research hypothesis for your scientific experiments. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of experimentation.

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

To devise and perform an experiment using scientific method, you need to make sure that your hypothesis is testable. To be considered testable, some essential criteria must be met:

• There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is true.
• There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is false.
• The results of the hypothesis must be reproducible.

Without these criteria, the hypothesis and the results will be vague. As a result, the experiment will not prove or disprove anything significant.

What are your experiences with building hypotheses for scientific experiments? What challenges did you face? How did you overcome these challenges? Please share your thoughts with us in the comments section.

Frequently Asked Questions

The steps to write a research hypothesis are: 1. Stating the problem: Ensure that the hypothesis defines the research problem 2. Writing a hypothesis as an 'if-then' statement: Include the action and the expected outcome of your study by following a ‘if-then’ structure. 3. Defining the variables: Define the variables as Dependent or Independent based on their dependency to other factors. 4. Scrutinizing the hypothesis: Identify the type of your hypothesis

Hypothesis testing is a statistical tool which is used to make inferences about a population data to draw conclusions for a particular hypothesis.

Hypothesis in statistics is a formal statement about the nature of a population within a structured framework of a statistical model. It is used to test an existing hypothesis by studying a population.

Research hypothesis is a statement that introduces a research question and proposes an expected result. It forms the basis of scientific experiments.

The different types of hypothesis in research are: • Null hypothesis: Null hypothesis is a negative statement to support the researcher’s findings that there is no relationship between two variables. • Alternate hypothesis: Alternate hypothesis predicts the relationship between the two variables of the study. • Directional hypothesis: Directional hypothesis specifies the expected direction to be followed to determine the relationship between variables. • Non-directional hypothesis: Non-directional hypothesis does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables. • Simple hypothesis: Simple hypothesis predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable. • Complex hypothesis: Complex hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. • Associative and casual hypothesis: Associative and casual hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. • Empirical hypothesis: Empirical hypothesis can be tested via experiments and observation. • Statistical hypothesis: A statistical hypothesis utilizes statistical models to draw conclusions about broader populations.

Wow! You really simplified your explanation that even dummies would find it easy to comprehend. Thank you so much.

Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance.

I enjoy reading the post. Hypotheses are actually an intrinsic part in a study. It bridges the research question and the methodology of the study.

Useful piece!

This is awesome.Wow.

It very interesting to read the topic, can you guide me any specific example of hypothesis process establish throw the Demand and supply of the specific product in market

Nicely explained

It is really a useful for me Kindly give some examples of hypothesis

It was a well explained content ,can you please give me an example with the null and alternative hypothesis illustrated

clear and concise. thanks.

So Good so Amazing

Good to learn

Thanks a lot for explaining to my level of understanding

Explained well and in simple terms. Quick read! Thank you

It awesome. It has really positioned me in my research project

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Industry News

COPE Forum Discussion Highlights Challenges and Urges Clarity in Institutional Authorship Standards

The COPE forum discussion held in December 2023 initiated with a fundamental question — is…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right…

How to Design Effective Research Questionnaires for Robust Findings

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

• Research Consultation
• How-to Guides
• People Search
• Library Databases
• Research Guides
• Find Periodicals
• Google Scholar
• Library Map
• Texts for Vets
• Interlibrary Loan - ILL
• Research & Instruction
• Computers and Laptops
• Services For...
• Reserve a Room
• APSU Records Management
• Library Collections
• Digital Collections
• Special Collections
• Veterans' Oral History
• Government Resources
• Subject Librarians
• Library Information
• Woodward Library Society
• New @ Woodward Library
• Celebration of Scholarship
• Join Woodward Library Society

Original Research: Creating a Hypothesis

• Initial Steps

Creating a Hypothesis

• Research Designs and Methods
• Submitting a Research Plan for Review
• Performing the Research
• Analyzing the Data
• Writing the Research Paper

After following the initial steps, the researcher should be able to create a hypothesis that can be tested. A hypothesis is a proposed statement that is intended to explain a theory for why something happens. To create a solid hypothesis, make sure it is not listed as a question, but as a prediction statement. To create a research hypothesis there has to be both a dependent and independent variable, and an expected outcome. Independent variables are what may be changed in the experiment to create an outcome. The dependent variable is what the experiment is intended to measure based on changes made to the independent variable. Defining the expected outcome creates the predictive component of the hypothesis that can be tested. Incorporating these elements into a simple predictive statement ensures that you can determine an outcome from the experiment. Ensure that any variables are taken into consideration, and that the results from the hypothesis are measurable.

Types of Hypotheses

There are many types of hypotheses, but the seven most common are the following:

• Simple Hypothesis - Questions the relationship between the dependent and independent variables.
• Complex Hypothesis - Questions the effect of multiple dependent and independent variables.
• Empirical Hypothesis - Often called a working hypothesis, this question is applied to a specific field when looking for empirical evidence.
• Null Hypothesis - This is used to contradict the expected effect of dependent and independent variables. 
• Alternative Hypothesis - Several hypotheses are given, but as the experiment proceeds, the alternative hypothesis is introduced to reflect the conditions of the experiment. 
• Logical Hypothesis - These hypotheses are able to be verified using logic.
• Statistical Hypothesis ​ - A hypothesis of this type is one that can be proven using statistical analysis.

For more information about how to create a hypothesis, have a look at the  Fundamentals of Research Methodology  by Engwa Godwill. 

Based on the hypothesis created, the researcher will need to determine the best research design for the experiment. 

Health Sciences Librarian

• << Previous: Initial Steps
• Next: Research Designs and Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jul 26, 2023 10:10 AM
• URL: https://libguides.apsu.edu/OriginalResearch

Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World

First person pronouns and the passive voice in scientific writing

A Concise Guide to Communication in Science and Engineering

• By David H. Foster
• January 18 th 2018

Imagine you are explaining your research to a friend. You might say “I tested this factor” or “We examined that effect”. But when you later prepare a written version for a scientific journal, you would probably eliminate the “I” and “we” in favour of the passive voice, which, unfortunately, can sometimes present a challenge. Here is an example from a chemistry journal, but the discipline is immaterial:

The influence of residual chloride ions on the catalytic activity, the kinetic aspects of the oxidation of methane over these catalysts, the nature of the active sites, the influence of metal particle size and reaction products on the activity, the observed changes in catalytic activity with reaction time and the effect of sulphur containing compounds are examined. ( Appl. Catal., B, 2002; 39: 1)

The 55 words before the verb “are examined” at the end require the reader to maintain an exceptional commitment to the content, and many would fail. Although this example is extreme, unwieldy passive constructions are common in scientific research articles and not peculiar either to native or to non-native English speakers. Yet top-heavy sentences—those with a very long subject and a short predicate—are unnatural in English outside scientific writing. Normal practice, according to the principle of end-weight, is to put the complex material, the detail, towards the end of the sentence, not at the beginning.

Why, then, do authors avoid “I” and “we” and routinely embrace the passive voice? After all, there is firm advice to the contrary. Authoritative style guides such as Day and Sakaduski’s Scientific English and Montgomery’s The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science argue that introducing the first person removes uncertainty about the agent of the action; it reminds the reader of a human presence, the person with whom the knowledge should be associated; and, practically, it avoids having to manage complicated passive sentences. The journal Nature is explicit, insisting that short reports should contain a one-sentence statement starting “Here we show” or an equivalent phrase. And, not to be discounted, using the first person in a string of statements “I compared”, “I tested”, “we found” does make writing easier, even automatic.

One compelling reason for eschewing “I” and “we” is to preserve objectivity, or at least its appearance, as is customary in other areas of writing. Thus, in the influential guide On Writing Well , the journalist and teacher William Zinsser points out that newspapers do not want “I” in their news stories, and magazines do not want it in their articles. Readers expect to read the news and be informed objectively—an aspiration that surely extends to readers of research journals. Intrusion of the first person is a distraction from the content and can distort the message. Consider the following example, which, initially, does not contain the first person:

A random effects meta-regression showed that [the] proportion of women in the sample was not significantly related to gender difference effect size. ( Psychol. Bull . 2014; 140: 165)

Apart from the technical language, the content is clear enough. Now introduce the first person by adding “We”, thus:

We showed in a random effects meta-regression that the proportion of women in the sample was not significantly related to gender difference effect size.

Although the content is preserved, the focus of the sentence shifts from what is important to the reader, the random effects meta-regression, to what is unimportant, the role of the authors. Simultaneously the sentence becomes wordier.

In his essay How to Write Mathematics , the great expositor and mathematician Paul Halmos described the use of “I” as sometimes having “a repellent effect, as arrogance or ex-cathedra preaching”. When it appears in the present rather than past tense, the preachiness of the first person becomes more pointed still, as in this example:

I derive and compare two new estimators that help correct this small-sample bias. ( Ecology 2015; 96: 2056).

The emphasis is on the author’s action: “I derive and compare”. Yet it is unnecessary. In the following rephrasing, the emphasis is on what is important, the new estimators:

Two new estimators are derived and compared that help correct this small-sample bias.

As a device, declarations of the form “I show”, “I derive”, “I compare” do make easy writing, though their repeated use can transform an exposition into a testimonial, not softened by using the plural “we show”, “we derive”, “we compare” instead. When “we” refers to the sole author of an article, the testimonial becomes a regal pronouncement.

Of course, there are circumstances where the first person is entirely appropriate, for example, in articles comprising reminiscences (“I first met”), in position statements (“We believe”), and in reviews reflecting a personal view (“I interpret”). In all of these uses, the author is central to the account. The use of “we” is also apposite in referring to the research community (“How can we explain?”) and to humankind (“How do we perceive?”). It is also deployed to effect in mathematical and related expositions, where it does not mean the authors alone but the authors and reader in joint activity to develop the argument (“If we substitute x for y , we see”). Other special uses of “we” are enumerated by Quirk and his colleagues in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language .

What of the rationale that the first person avoids top-heavy passive constructions? The example at the beginning of this article can indeed be rescued by introducing “We” and moving the verb from the end to the beginning, thus:

We examine the influence of residual chloride ions on the catalytic activity, the kinetic aspects of the oxidation of methane over these catalysts, the nature of the active sites, the influence of metal particle size and reaction products on the activity, the observed changes in catalytic activity with reaction time and the effect of sulphur containing compounds.

But, as elsewhere, the cost is the shift in focus. Since the material in the sentence is essentially a list, that fact can be exploited in a rephrasing that avoids “We” and better prepares the reader for what comes next:

Several effects were examined: the influence of residual chloride ions on the catalytic activity, the kinetic aspects of the oxidation of methane over these catalysts, the nature of the active sites, the influence of metal particle size and reaction products on the activity, the observed changes in catalytic activity with reaction time, and the effect of sulphur containing compounds.

The moral of all this is that explaining your research to a friend is not the same as reporting it in a scientific journal. Your friend is interested in you, whereas the reader is interested in what you have found, in other words, the “news”. The two audiences for your account are different, and so is the need for “I” and “we”. Eliminating the first person from a written report does not, though, require top-heavy passive constructions, just rephrasing that goes beyond the merely automatic.

Featured image credit: Hand by nattanan23. Public domain via Pixabay . 

David H. Foster is Professor of Vision Systems at the University of Manchester and formerly Director of Research in the School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering. He has served as journal editor or editor in chief for over thirty years and has taught communication in science and engineering at undergraduate, postgraduate, and postdoctoral levels in the UK and elsewhere. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics, the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, and the Optical Society of America. David is the author of A Concise Guide to Communication in Science and Engineering .

• Science & Medicine

Our Privacy Policy sets out how Oxford University Press handles your personal information, and your rights to object to your personal information being used for marketing to you or being processed as part of our business activities.

We will only use your personal information to register you for OUPblog articles.

Or subscribe to articles in the subject area by email or RSS

Related posts:

Recent Comments

This explains one of the very fundamentals in writing scientific reports in a very logical manner extremely well !!

Very enlightening indeed!

right. next paper i’m using the second person. YOU’RE not going to believe this but…

Nice read. One argument I’ve heard and that is not explicitly mentioned here for using the “we” form is that it establishes a sense of ownership (both in writer and through attribution, also in the reader) of the presented work. Which would enhance the writing and reading experience (and it does, in my personal experience).

The sole use of passive voice in Methods sections can get pretty clumsy and tedious? At least there, I prefer to mix up active and passive. (And often elsewhere.)

Nice reflection and very true. In Spanish all the arguments works similarly.

Very helpful examples, here. In scientific writing one often sees use of “this study” as a substitute for “we”, putting the agency into a project or activity rather than a person or persons. For example, “This study addressed the role of …” This compromise allows more fluid sentence construction while avoiding the first person. We didn’t do it. The study did. :-)

the final comma in the last re-write is critical for understanding. Thanks to David Foster for leaving it there, and resisting the copy-editor who (no doubt) tried to remove it.

Excellent article! I (first person) also feel that writing in first person favours established researchers. When fairly junior scientists, someone new to the field writes in first person, a certain amount of unconscious bias creeps in from the readers end.

Nice article. Good writing in English with avoidance of strange constructions and passive voice is enthusiastically and personally endorsed.

Great examples and a wonderful read!

The post is very helpful. I passed it to my students and some colleagues. Passive sentences are much less often used in Chinese. The sentence “Two new estimators are derived and compared that help correct this small-sample bias” would sound very odd if translated literally in Chinese. Most likely it would be translated as “We derived and compared two new estimators that help correct this small-sample bias”. Plus there is no past tense in Chinese. I am not sure whether Chinese scientists would use less passive sentences in their writings though.

One possible risk of the passive voice is that it relieves the author of some responsibility for the work. But maybe the passive voice raises the moral bar, since we are aiming to report “news”? I wonder if articles using the passive voice are any more likely to be those in which we find scientific misconduct. Or rather, is it conceivable that scientific misconduct is found in articles that use the passive voice? In the first formulation, you can discount the query because it’s just me asking.

Very useful article specially for new researchers.

Great article. Having spent many years working in the bureaucracy, I am now in a role with a research institute, not as a researcher, but a manager and find research writing interesting. In a few weeks, we will screen abstracts for papers that are going to be presented at a consortium conference we are organizing. A good read and tip in preparation for that task ahead.

Comments are closed.

Scientific Method: Step 3: HYPOTHESIS

• Step 1: QUESTION
• Step 2: RESEARCH
• Step 3: HYPOTHESIS
• Step 4: EXPERIMENT
• Step 5: DATA
• Step 6: CONCLUSION

Step 3: State your hypothesis

Now it's time to state your hypothesis . The hypothesis is an educated guess as to what will happen during your experiment. 

The hypothesis is often written using the words "IF" and "THEN." For example, " If I do not study, then I will fail the test." The "if' and "then" statements reflect your independent and dependent variables . 

The hypothesis should relate back to your original question and must be testable .

A word about variables...

Your experiment will include variables to measure and to explain any cause and effect. Below you will find some useful links describing the different types of variables.

• "What are independent and dependent variables" NCES
• [VIDEO] Biology: Independent vs. Dependent Variables (Nucleus Medical Media) Video explaining independent and dependent variables, with examples.

Resource Links

• What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research? (Elsevier)
• Hypothesis brochure from Penn State/Berks

• << Previous: Step 2: RESEARCH
• Next: Step 4: EXPERIMENT >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 10:59 AM
• URL: https://harford.libguides.com/scientific_method

Sunday, May 12, 2024

• Are first-person pronouns acceptable in scientific writing?

February 23, 2011 Filed under Blog , Featured , Popular , Writing  

Interestingly, this rule seems to have originated with Francis Bacon to give scientific writing more objectivity.

In Eloquent Science (pp. 76-77), I advocate that first-person pronouns are acceptable in limited contexts. Avoid their use in rote descriptions of your methodology (“We performed the assay…”). Instead, use them to communicate that an action or a decision that you performed affects the outcome of the research.

NO FIRST-PERSON PRONOUN: Given option A and option B, the authors chose option B to more accurately depict the location of the front. FIRST-PERSON PRONOUN: Given option A and option B, we chose option B to more accurately depict the location of the front.

So, what do other authors think? I have over 30 books on scientific writing and have read numerous articles on this point. Here are some quotes from those who expressed their opinion on this matter and I was able to find from the index of the book or through a quick scan of the book.

“Because of this [avoiding first-person pronouns], the scientist commonly uses verbose (and imprecise) statements such as “It was found that” in preference to the short, unambiguous “I found.” Young scientists should renounce the false modesty of their predecessors. Do not be afraid to name the agent of the action in a sentence, even when it is “I” or “we.”” — How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper by Day and Gastel, pp. 193-194 “Who is the universal ‘it’, the one who hides so bashfully, but does much thinking and assuming? “ It is thought that … is a meaningless phrase and unnecessary exercise in modesty. The reader wants to know who did the thinking or assuming, the author, or some other expert.” — The Science Editor’s Soapbox by Lipton, p. 43 “I pulled 40 journals at random from one of my university’s technical library’s shelves…. To my surprise, in 32 out of the 40 journals, the authors indeed made liberal use of “I” and “we.” — Style for Students by Joe Schall, p. 63 “Einstein occasionally used the first person. He was not only a great scientist, but a great scientific writer. Feynman also used the first person on occasion, as did Curie, Darwin, Lyell, and Freud. As long as the emphasis remains on your work and not you, there is nothing wrong with judicious use of the first person.” — The Craft of Scientific Writing by Michael Alley, p. 107 “One of the most epochal papers in all of 20th-century science, Watson and Crick’s article defies nearly every major rule you are likely to find in manuals on scientific writing…. There is the frequent use of “we”…. This provides an immediate human presence, allowing for constant use of active voice. It also gives the impression that the authors are telling us their actual thought processes.” — The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science by Scott L. Montgomery, p. 18 “We believe in the value of a long tradition (which some deplore) arguing that it is inappropriate for the author of a scientific document to refer to himself or herself directly, in the first person…. There is no place for the subjectivity implicit in personal intrusion on the part of the one who conducted the research—especially since the section is explicitly labeled “Results”…. If first-person pronouns are appropriate anywhere in a dissertation, it would be in the Discussion section…because different people might indeed draw different inferences from a given set of facts.” — The Art of Scientific Writing by Ebel et al., p. 79. [After arguing for two pages on clearly explaining why the first person should not be used…] “The first person singular is appropriate when the personal element is strong, for example, when taking a position in a controversy. But this tends to weaken the writer’s credibility. The writer usually wants to make clear that anyone considering the same evidence would take the same position. Using the third person helps to express the logical impersonal character and generality of an author’s position, whereas the first person makes it seem more like personal opinion.” — The Scientist’s Handbook for Writing Papers and Dissertations by Antoinette Wilkinson, p. 76.

So, I can find only one source on my bookshelf advocating against use of the first-person pronouns in all situations (Wilkinson). Even the Ebel et al. quote I largely agree with.

Thus, first-person pronouns in scientific writing are acceptable if used in a limited fashion and to enhance clarity.

Isn’t it telling that Ebel et al begin their argument against usage of the first person with the phrase ““We believe …”?

That is a reall good point, Kirk. Thanks for pointing that out!

This argument is approximately correct, but in my opinion off point. The use of first person should always be minimized in scientific writing, but not because it is unacceptable or even uncommon. It should be minimized because it is ineffective, and it is usually badly so. Specifically, the purpose of scientific writing is to create a convincing argument based on data collected during the evaluation of a hypothesis. This is basic scientific method. The strength of this argument depends on the data, not on the person who collected it. Using first person deemphasises the data, which weakens the argument and opens the door for subjective criticism to be used to rebut what should be objective data. For example, suppose I hypothesized that the sun always rises in the east, and I make daily observations over the course of a year to support that hypothesis. I could say, “I have shown that the sun always rises in the east”. A critic might respond by simply saying that I am crazy, and that I got it wrong. In other words, it can easily become an argument about “me”. However, if I said “Daily observations over the course of a year showed that the sun always rises in the east”, then any subsequent argument must rebut the data and not rebut “me”. Actually, I would never say this using either of those formulations. I would say, “Daily observations over the course of a year were consistent with the hypothesis that the sun always rises in the east.” This is basic scientific expository writing.

Finally, if one of my students EVER wrote “it was found that …”, I would hit him or her over the head with a very large stick. That is just as bad as “I found that …”, and importantly, those are NOT the only two options. The correct way to say this in scientific writing is, “the data showed that …”.

In general, I agree with you. We should omit ourselves from our science to emphasize what the data demonstrate.

My only qualification is that, as scientists, the collection, observation, and interpretation of data is difficult to disconnect from its human aspects. Being a human endeavor, science is necessarily affected by the humans themselves who do the work.

Thanks for your comment!

i could not understand why 1st person I is used with plural verb

Not sure that I completely understand your question, but grammatically “I” should only be used with a singular verb. If you use “I” in scientific writing, only do so with single-authored papers.

Does that answer your question?

why do we use ‘have’ with ‘i’ pronoun?

I wouldn’t view it as “I” goes with the plural verb “have”, but that “have” can be used with a number of different persons, regardless of whether it is singular or plural.

First person singular: “I have” Second person singular: “You have” Third person singular: “He/She/It has”

First person plural: “We have” Second person plural: “All of you have” Third person plural: “They have”

I know it perhaps doesn’t make sense, but that is the way English works.

I hope that helps.

I think there are a few cases where personal pronouns would be acceptable. If you are introducing a new section in a thesis or even an article, you might want to say “we begin with a description of the data in section 2” etc, rather than the cumbersome “this paper will begin with …”. Also in discussions of future work, it would make sense to say “we intend to explore X, Y and Z”.

I loved reading this, my Prof. and I were debating about this. He wants me to say “I analyzed” and I want to say “problem notification database analysed revealed that…”

I’m writing a paper for a conference. I wonder if I can defy a Professor in Korea:)

I disagree that writing in the 3rd person makes writing more objective. I also disagree that it “opens the door for subjective criticism to be used to rebut what should be objective data”. In fact, using the 3rd person obstructs reality. There are people behind the research who both make mistakes and do great things. It is no less true for science than it is for other subjects that 3rd person obstructs the author of an action and makes the idea being conveyed less clear. I find it odd that scientific writing guides instruct authors to BOTH use active voice AND use only the 3rd person. It is impossible to do both. Active voice means that there is a subject, a strong verb (not a version of the verb “to be”) and an object. When I say “The solution was mixed”, it is BOTH 3rd person and passive voice. The only way to construct that sentence without passive voice is to say “We mixed the solution”. Honestly, after spending most of the first part of my life in English classes and then transitioning to science, I find most scientific writing an abomonination.

Hi Kathleen,

I think it is great that you have had your feet in both English and science. For many of us who have struggled as writers, those people are great role models to aspire to.

An anecdote: my wife’s research student turned in a brief report on his work to date. She was showing me how well written his work was, really pretty advanced for an undergrad physics student. Later, she found out that he was trying to decide between majoring in physics and majoring in English.

Hi David. Thanks very much for your tips. Very interesting article. Did you just tweet that you should keep “I” and “We” out of the abstract? I am translating a psychology article from Spanish into English, and I’ve come up against an unwieldly sentence (the very last one in the abstract) that basically wants to say “We propose a number of strategies for improving the impact of the psychological treatments[…]” Would you say it’s a no-no? I tend to avoid personal pronouns in academic articles as much as poss, but it just sounds like the most natural option in this case. Perhaps I could put, “This article proposes a number of treatments…”? Strictly speaking it’s not the article that’s doing the proposing, obviously. I’d be very grateful to have your opinion. Thanks a lot. Best regards. Louisa

Yes, it’s difficult. How about going passive? “A number of treatments are proposed….”?

The comments against using first person, which are rampant in science education, are silly. Go read Nature or Science. I believe Kathleen makes a fantastic point.

Just happened across this blog while searching for something else, and procrastination rules, ok?

My pet hate is lecturers who uncritically criticise students for using the third person. Close behind is institutional guidance/insistence on third person ‘scientific writing’. Both are hugely ironic, the first because it is typically uncritical and purely traditional (we are employed to teach others to be critical and challenge tradition), the second because there is so little empirical evidence to suggest that the scientific method is third person.

I very much appreciated Bill Lott’s response because a) it was critical and b) it discussed the issue of good and bad writing as opposed to first and third person. However I would still suggest that the way he would report his exemplar data is all but first person:

“Daily observations over the course of a year were consistent with the hypothesis that the sun always rises in the east.”

Who did the observations if not the first person? All that is missing is My or Our at the beginning of the sentence and hey presto

Another facet of writing is that it disappears if not frequently watered and tended to.

Even though this is an old article, I’d like to add my 2c to the thread.

I think the use of the 3rd person is pompous, verbose and obtuse – it uses many words to say the same thing in a flowery way.

“It is the opinion of the author that” as opposed to “I think that”

Anybody reading the article knows that it’s written by a person / persons who did the research on the topic, who are either presenting their findings or opinion. The whole 3rd person thing seems to be a game, and I for one, HATE writing about myself in the 3rd person.

That being said, it seems to be the convention that the 3rd person is used, and I probably will write my paper in the 3rd person anyway, just to not rock the boat.

But I wish that the pomposity would stop and we would get more advocates for writing in plain English.

Hi, i was wondering… can “We” be said in a scientific school report?

Depends on the context, I guess. I would follow the same advice as above.

Thanks for all the tips. Don’t forget that in the future historians are going to want to know who did what and when. Scientists may not think it important, but historians will (especially if it is a significant contribution). Furthermore, by not revealing particulars regarding individual contributions opens the door for many scientists to falsify the historical record in their favor (I have experienced this first hand in a recent publication).

i think it is soo weird to use first person in reports…….third persons will be more effective when used and that will give a clear explanations to the audience

Even Nature journals are encouraging “we” in the manuscript.

“Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice (“we performed the experiment…”) as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly.”

https://www.nature.com/authors/author_resources/how_write.html

[…] Is trouwens iets dat blijkbaar al lang voor discussies zorgt, als je deze links bekijkt: Are first-person pronouns acceptable in scientific writing? : eloquentscience.com Use of the word "I" in scientific papers Zelfs wikipedia heeft er een artikel over: […]

[…] There was some discussion on Twitter about whether or not to write in the 1st person. The Lab & Field pointed out that Francis Bacon may have been responsible for the movement to avoid it in scientific writing…  […]

[…] ¿Son aceptables los pronombres en primera persona en publicaciones científicas? [ENG] […]

[…] do discuss this among themselves. For example, see Yateendra Joshi and Professor David M. Schultz. Professor Schultz notes that the use of the first person in science appears to be as common among […]

[…] http://eloquentscience.com/2011/02/are-first-person-pronouns-acceptable-in-scientific-writing/ […]

[…] There’s no rule about the passive voice in science. People seem to think that it’s “scientific” writing, but it isn’t. It’s just bad writing. There’s actually no rule against first person pronouns either! Read this for more on the use of the first-person in scientific writing. […]

To order, visit:

The American Meteorological Society (preferred)

The University of Chicago Press

eNews & Updates

Sign up to receive breaking news as well as receive other site updates!

David M. Schultz is a Professor of Synoptic Meteorology at the Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and the Centre for Crisis Studies and Mitigation, The University of Manchester. He served as Chief Editor for Monthly Weather Review from 2008 to 2022. In 2014 and 2017, he received the University of Manchester Teaching Excellence Award, the only academic to have twice done so. He has published over 190 peer-reviewed journal articles. [Read more]

• Search for:

Latest Tweets

currently unavailable

Recent Posts

• Free Writing and Publishing Online Workshop: 19–20 June 2024
• Editorial: How to Be a More Effective Author
• How to be a more effective reviewer
• The Five Most Common Problems with Introductions
• Eliminate excessive and unnecessary acronyms from your scientific writing
• Chinese translation of Eloquent Science now available
• How Bill Paxton Helped Us Understand Tornadoes in Europe
• Publishing Academic Papers Workshop
• Past or Present Tense?
• Rejected for publication: What now?
• Thermodynamic diagrams for free
• Do you end with a ‘thank you’ or ‘questions?’ slide?
• Presentations

Copyright © 2024 EloquentScience.com · All Rights Reserved · StudioPress theme customized by Insojourn Design · Log in

How to Generate a Hypothesis in the 3rd Person

Anne mullenniex.

The Scientific Method is a way to study and explain the natural world, and can be used in every day applications, as well. This method consists of a logical sequence of steps that include observing a phenomenon; generating a scientific question about the phenomenon; postulating a tentative, falsifiable answer to that question; testing the possible answer by experimentation; and collecting and analyzing the results of your experiment. The tentative answer portion of this method is called a hypothesis and can be written as a prediction. Generating a hypothesis in the third person means taking yourself or another person out of the equation.

Ask your scientific question. For example: “Why doesn’t my lawnmower work?”

Change the first person point of view by removing the “I” and “my” to the third person objective point of view. This is the point of view of an objective narrator. For example: “Why doesn’t the lawnmower work?”

Stay in the third person objective point of view and state your hypothesis by answering the question. For example: “The lawnmower doesn’t work because it is out of gas.”

State your hypothesis, alternatively, as an answer to the question in a predictive “if…then” format. For example: “If the lawnmower isn’t working because it is out of gas, then it will work once gas is added to the tank.”

About the Author

Anne Mullenniex has been writing for eHow since 2009. She has owned and operated computer, construction, and insurance businesses. She has a bachelor's and a master's degree in biology and has taught at a community college. She is now working as an artist/artisan in multiple media.

Related Articles

How to Do a Proposal for a Fifth Grade Science Project

How to Address the State Attorney General in a Letter

How to Write Up a Science Experiment in 3rd Grade

How to Write a Research Report for a Science Fair

The Process Android.Process.Acore Stopped Unexpectedly

How to Write a Discussion for an APA Style Paper

How to Write a 4th Grade Science Fair Report

How to Write a Grade 10 Lab Report

What Is a Problem Statement in a Lab Report?

List of Pharmacy Schools Without PCAT Requirements

What Is a Conditional Statement in Math?

Steps to Writing Research Paper Abstracts

What Kind of Human Errors Can Occur During Experiments?

How Can I Find What Precinct I Live in?

How to Export Zotero to Evernote

How to Write a Proposal for a Computer Science Topic

Where Is the Chrome Cache Saved?

How Good of a Friend is Your BFF?

How to Solve Simultaneous Equations With a Ti 89

How to Write a Parenthetical Notation

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Webinar Transcripts: Appropriate Use of First Person and Avoiding Bias

Appropriate use of first person and avoiding bias.

Presented July 17, 2019

View the recording

Last updated 8/25/2019

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Housekeeping

• Will be available online within 24 hours.
• Polls, files, and links are interactive.
• Now: Use the Q&A box.
• Later: Send to [email protected] or visit our Live Chat Hours .
• Ask in the Q&A box.
• Choose “Help” in the upper right-hand corner of the webinar room

Audio: Hello everyone and welcome to today's webinar entitled appropriate use of first-person and avoiding bias. I’m Michael Dusek and I’m a writing instructor in the Walden writing center I’ll be working behind the scenes of today's webinar. Before we begin and I hand the session over to today's presenter, Kacy, let me go over a few housekeeping items.

First, we are recording this webinar so you are welcome to access it at a later date via our webinar archive and in fact note that we record all of our webinars at the writing center so you are welcome to look through that archive for other recordings that might interest you as well.

Furthermore, we might mention a few webinars that will be a helpful follow-up to this webinar during the session so feel free to explore the webinar archive at your leisure.

Also, whether you are attending this webinar live or watch a recording, note that you’ll be able to participate in any polls that we use, files we share or links we provide. You can also access the PowerPoint slides Kacy will be sharing which are located in the files pod.

Lastly, we also welcome questions and comments throughout the session via the Q & A box. I will be watching the Q & A box and will be happy to answer questions throughout the session as Kacy is presenting. You're also welcome to present any technical issues you have to me there although note there is a help option at the right corner of your screen. This is Adobes Technical Support so that is probably the best place to go if tech issues persist. Okay, with that I will hand over the session to our presenter, Kacy Walz.

Visual: Slide changes to the title of the webinar, “Appropriate Use of First Person and Avoiding Bias” and the speaker’s name and information: Kacy Walz, Writing Instructor, Walden University Writing Center

Audio: Kacy: Hello, and thank you all for joining us and as Michael said my name is Kacy Walz and I'm also a writing instructor at the Walden writing center and I am calling in today from St. Louis, Missouri, where it is very hot and I hope you are all enjoying nice weather wherever you are.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Today’s Learning Objectives:

• Identify appropriate uses
• Identify inappropriate uses
• What constitutes objectivity?
• Ways to avoid bias
• Understanding implicit bias

Audio: In our webinar we have a few learning objectives. First, we are going to go over the use of first-person or personal pronouns, which are those pronouns like I, me, my, and we are going to go over the appropriate uses for these pronouns and also where it might be inappropriate to use those first-person pronouns.

We are also going to be talking about avoiding bias. So, we’ll go over what constitutes bias and what constitutes objectivity too. We'll talk about some ways to avoid bias and then we are going to have a little bit of information about understanding implicit bias and how it impacts your writing and your other scholarly courses.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Use of First person

• Allowed by both Walden and APA…

…when used appropriately.

           Section 3.09 in APA Manual

           Writing Center website

Audio: First off, we are going to talk about first person. First person is allowed by both Walden and APA when it’s used appropriately. Now if you have any questions about this, you can check these different websites or the section 3.09 in the APA manual but contrary to some confusion, you should be using first person in your scholarly writing.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Considerations

• Program/degree level
• Assignment requirements
• Professor preferences

Audio: There are some different considerations of course for how often or when you're going to use that first person.

First off will be the program for the degree level so certain programs are going to have different rules about when you are using first person and also depending on what level you are at there might be some different expectations. You might also have some different assignment requirements so if the assignment is specifically telling you not to use first person, we don't want to give you any misconceptions about that. You want to follow your assignment directions. And then also going along with that professor preferences -- different professors will have different ways that they like you to present your information and at the writing center we are always going to defer to your professor, so whatever he or she prefers is how you want to go about with your writing.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: When to Use the First Person:

To avoid “the author” and “this researcher”

• I sent the surveys to the participants.
• I replicated McCaskey ’ s (2012) study with a fourth-grade population.

Audio: So, here are some places that you want to avoid, I’m sorry that you want to use the first person. You want to avoid saying the author or this researcher when you’re talking specifically about yourself. Some examples are this researcher sent the surveys to the participants. Or in this second example McCaskey conducted a study of standardized test performance in third grade English language learners. The author replicated this study with a fourth-grade population. Here you can see how both of these instances by using the author or the researcher it’s a little bit trickier for our reader to understand who exactly is doing all of this. In the first one we can clarify basically saying I sent the surveys to the participants. If you are the one conducting this research process take ownership of that and claim that as something you've actually done if you are the one who sent out the survey.

Similarly, with the second one, I replicated McCaskey's study with a fourth-grade population clarifies that when this writer was saying the author, they actually meant themselves – they were the ones who replicated the study. If I am a reader coming across these sentences, I might think that writer is still talking about McCaskey so therefore McCaskey is getting the credit for this second study with the fourth-grade population when actually it’s the writer that did all that work, so you want to claim that credit by using first person.

Audio: Here is another example. So here we have afterschool programs have a documented connection to students’ physical fitness and their education. Gortmaker found that students activity levels increased by 10 minutes when physical fitness was integrated with afterschool programs. I will use this model to implement a similar program in my own school district. By continuing Gortmakers focus on physical fitness and education or afterschool programs, I will show the effectiveness of integrating the two focuses. And so here again you can see how using that first person clarifies for your reader what part of this is coming from Gortmaker and what part is actually being completed by me, the writer.

To avoid anthropomorphism

• In this paper, I will examine…
• In this section, I will explore…

Additional Resource!

What is anthropomorphism?

Audio: You also want to use first person to avoid what we call anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is basically just a fancy word for when you give agency to an inanimate object. Some examples here are, this paper will examine or this section will explore. So a paper on its own can’t examine anything and a section cannot explore anything. Instead we can say in this paper, I will examine because you, as the writer and scholar are perfectly able to examine something. Or you could say in this section, I will explore and so you are clarifying for your reader that this specific section is working to achieve something but you're not giving this section or the paper that kind of agency or animation as it in self is going to be examining or exploring.

To explain what you will do or show in a paper

• I will do this…
• I will show that…
• I will summarize this…
• I will conclude with…

Audio: So, you want to use first person to explain what you will do or show in a paper like in those previous examples, so you might say I will do this or I’ll show that and provide some kind of argument. I am going to summarize this or I will conclude with so using that first person to let your reader know that this is what they can expect is a really good use of first-person.

To avoid passive voice

• I will suggest a healthcare initiative.
• I will analyze three education theories.
• I will explain ways that I will manage my time.
• Active and Passive Voice

Audio: You also want to use first person to avoid passive voice and I think this is something that can be a little bit confusing because this is a comment that I make on a lot of papers but basically when you use passive voice it’s just unclear to your reader what the specific subject is or who is doing the action. Here we have a healthcare initiative will be suggested. Who is suggesting this healthcare initiative? Right? As a reader I am not sure. Three education theories will be analyzed. Again, I am not sure who was doing the analysis here, I don’t know what the actual subject of that sentence is or ways that time will be managed will be explained by me. And I think this third example is a good illustration of where passive voice can become a little bit clunky and make it where you are using more words than you need to use and it gets in the way of the overall readability of your paper.

So instead I could write I will suggest a healthcare initiative. So, there's no question in who is making this recommendation, it is the writer. I’m not referencing any other resources at least in this paper. I will analyze three education theories. Again, you’re taking credit for the work you’re the one providing this analysis you're going to give and then I will explain ways that I will manage my time. So again, it is much more direct. It might not be that many fewer words but it is just a little bit more clear and does not seem quite so circular when you have all of that passive voice method involved.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Putting it All together

Choose one sentence; revise it and submit it to the chat box.

This section explores the theories of positivism, functionalism, and social construction, after which their applicability to national health care will be analyzed. The author also compares these theories to her hospital, illustrating that functionalism is most appropriate for this organization.

Audio: So, I have a chance for you guys to put this into practice so in the chat box take one of these sentences and just revise it and submit it into the chat box. I’m going to put this on silence for a bit and give you guys a chance

[Silence as participants respond]

I am seeing a lot of great responses come in and I think you guys are picking up on the really important pieces that we wanted you to note. First off several of you have noticed that the section can’t explore anything so we need to provide some subject and a lot of you put in this section I will explore or simply I will explore two theories so you are clarifying who exactly it is who is doing this exploring, who was providing these theories. Similarly, some of you are pointing out this idea of what is, whose hospital is her hospital? The author also compares these theories to her hospital and with your revisions I see that you are working through what that specifically means and are making great points that as readers that is very unclear whereas if I revise this to: I will also compare these theories to my hospital or the hospital where I work, that is going to clarify and give a focus point for your reader so now it is pinpointed what specific hospital you’re talking about. We don't have this confusion of did I miss something or did I misread another part of this paper where they are talking about this so you're doing a great job. Thank you so much for participating.

In this section, I explore the theories of positivism, functionalism, and social construction, after which I analyze their applicability to national health care. I also compare these theories to my hospital, illustrating that functionalism is most appropriate for my organization.

Here is the way that I revised that chat box. Similarly, to what a lot of you have written in the chat box, in this section, I explore the theories of positivism, functionalism and social construction, after which I analyze their applicability to national healthcare. I also compare these theories to my hospital illustrating that functionalism is most appropriate for my organization. So again we’ve got all that information cleared up I know that I should not be looking for any citations because these are going to be my own ideas and my own work and it’s clear that I am talking about a specific organization and my reader has a sense of what specific hospital, what specific organization I am talking about.

I don't know if you heard that loud clap of thunder all of a sudden. It just all of a sudden started raining here. It kind of scared me. But anyway.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: In appropriate Use of First Person

• Sometimes weakens your argument
• May be perceived as bias

Audio: Now we're going to go over some inappropriate uses of first-person. So, this is where I think a lot of the confusion stems and people are afraid to use first person in their scholarly writing because sometimes using first person can weaken your argument or lots of times teachers or people who are commenting on papers might recommend that you avoid first-person so that your argument seems stronger or you seem more assured of the points that you are making. Additionally, can also sometimes be perceived as bias so whether or not you actually have that bias or you are trying to present something as an argument, using that first-person can lead your reader to believe that there is bias there.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Inappropriate Use of the First Person

To express opinions or beliefs

• Teachers need to pay attention to students ’ individual needs in order to...
• Nurses should be more caring towards their patients in order to...

Audio: So, here are some more examples of that. I think that teachers need to pay attention to students’ individual needs. I believe that nurses should be more caring towards their patients. I think these are kind of the classic examples of when reviewers are going to recommend that you avoid first-person. Because you don't really need that I think or I believe because the act of writing that sentence is going to make it clear to your reader that this is what you think or believe. Instead you can simply say teachers need to pay attention to students’ individual needs and then you can build that into your argument, in order to and so it’s very clear that this is your point that you are making and this is the argument that you want to lead into with that statement, teachers need to pay attention.

Similarly, we could just say nurses should be more caring towards their patients in order to, and so again we are introducing the specific arguments but because I don't have any citation and because I’m just presenting this within my writing it’s going to be clear to my reader that this is my point, what I believe.

To make assumptions about your audience.

• Educators have a responsibility to address all students’ learning styles.
• The United States entered a new period of educational reform in the 1970s.

Audio: Another place where it can be tricky and I see this a lot in papers too, is using second person, basically when you are bringing your reader into a group or you are implicating them in some way along with yourself. So, we have a responsibility as educators to ensure that all students’ learning styles are addressed. Right? That is going to assume something about whoever it is that is reading it that they are also going to be part of that group that I am claiming for myself.

Our nation entered a new period of educational reform in the 1970s. You’re making the assumption that whoever is reading this paper is also going to claim your nation as their own, is going to know specifically what nation you are referring to when you are talking about those educational reforms. So instead you can simply say educators have a responsibility to address all students’ learning styles. That way it’s very clear to your reader who you are talking about because maybe your reader does identify as part of that group. Similarly, but they are not sure what specific group you are talking about. Are you talking about parents, are you talking about school administrators? Here specifically we want to talk about educators so we are going to make that very clear by simply saying educators have that responsibility.

In this next sentence we can say the United States entered a new period of educational reform in the 1970s which makes it very clear what nation you are talking about, particularly as Walden students you might have readers from all over the world. So saying our nation is going to be very confusing to someone who does not live in the United States or who lives in a different country that you do, if they are reading your paper and feel they are expected to know what nation experienced educational reform in the 1970s because probably there’s going to be more than one, there’s going to be more than one nation for whatever you are talking about so you want to make sure that is really clear.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Putting It All Together

In my opinion, business managers should pay more attention to employees’ strengths. In the organization I volunteer for, I think many employees have strengths that managers overlook. Members of our profession must remain aware of the importance of recognizing employees’ individual abilities to effectively build a team.

Audio: Here is another chat opportunity so again you're going to take one of these sentences and revise it so that you are using first person when you want to use it and you are avoiding it when maybe it is not necessary, when it’s going to make your paper stronger to avoid that use of first-person. I am going to mute for about two minutes and give you time to answer.

[silence as participants respond]

Great I see a lot of you have picked up on the fact that we don't need that, in my opinion. We can just start with business managers should pay more attention to some of you have added that in order to at the end so I am not just stating this opinion but I want to state this opinion so that it can lead into some larger argument. Let me just to go over my own corrections here which I think again is very similar to what you all have typed in the chat box. Business managers should pay more attention to employee strengths in order to be effective leaders. In the organization I volunteer for, a lot of you noted we still want to keep that first-person, many employees have strengths that managers overlook. Managers must remain aware of the importance of recognizing employees’ individual abilities to effectively build a team.

Business managers should pay more attention to employees’ strengths in order to be effective leaders. In the organization I volunteer for, many employees have strengths that managers overlook. Managers must remain aware of the importance of recognizing employees’ individual abilities to effectively build a team.

So first-person should be used in a few of those areas, right? Because it makes it clear for the reader specifically which organization you are talking about -- it kind of gives you a little bit of claim too. I have noticed this in my own organization it gives you that extra credibility, but also we have removed the second person of members of our profession because we don't know specifically which profession the reader might be in or how they might identify themselves in this specific situation. Instead we can just say managers in general should remain aware. Right?

Great job. It looks like a lot if you even went above and beyond and did not just take one sentence but decided to revise the whole thing, so great job. You guys are rocking along.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Questions?

Submit in the Q&A Box! Up Next: Objectivity and Avoiding Bias.

Audio: We're going to take a quick minute here before we move on to talking about bias. Michael are there any questions that might be helpful to discuss as a larger group?

Michael: Hey Kacy at this point the Q&A box has been pretty quiet. If you have any questions that you would like to get answered as the pr0esentation continues feel free to drop them in the Q&A box and I will respond to them as soon as I can, but at this point I think you're good to move on.

Kacy: Please do if you have any questions be sure to let us know in that chat box and we can talk about them as a larger group or Michael can just answer them directly.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Objectivity & Avoiding Bias

What does objectivity and avoiding bias in writing mean to you?

           According to APA (2010), “scientific writing must be free of implied or irrelevant evaluation of the group or groups being studied” (p.233).

Audio: Before we get into talking about bias and objectivity, I just want to give you a minute to think about what objectivity and avoiding bias in writing means to you. So, why do you think that is important to be objective and to avoid bias when you are crafting your papers? I’ll just maybe go on mute for another minute or so while you enter that in the chat box.

We have this little citation from APA. According to APA scientific writing must be free of implied or irrelevant evaluation of the group or groups being studied and that’s really important particularly a lot of the projects that Walden students create are dealing with social sciences or dealing with groups of individuals. We focus a lot on social change and so maintaining that objectivity and avoiding bias is very important in all scholarly writing but especially for Walden students and it looks like you all are also picking up on the really important parts about why you want to maintain objectivity in writing. Some people have pointed out that you don't want to be misunderstood, you don’t want people to think that you are making a certain assumption or argument that you are not intending with some unintentionally bias sounding language. You want to make sure that your writing is credible and if it sounds like the writing is overly biased or is not objective that definitely takes away from your credibility as a writer.

You want to always, always be supporting your arguments with evidence so it shouldn’t be based on opinion. You want to clearly present that you have researched your argument, that you have a strong foundation for it and you are not just making things up and that is why citations are so important in making sure that you are providing that good research. Awesome.

• Objectivity is

The standard for social science publication

Different from nonacademic sources

• Objectivity is not

Passionless or robotic

Missing your voice

Audio: Some things about objectivity is, it is a standard for social science publication. Make sure you are being objective because that is a major goal for a lot of scholars is to be published and it’s different in terms of what objectivity means for academic sources versus non-academic sources.

What objectivity is not however, it does not mean that your writing is passionless or robotic and it does not mean that you are not including your own voice, you definitely you want to include argumentation. You want to include your own points of scholar and you want to make your writing interesting and to be engaging for your reader. Being passionless or robotic does not mean that you are being objective so I think that’s something that we want to get out of the way right up front. You can be very passionate about a topic but still not be writing in a biased or nonobjective way.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Why avoid bias?

• Don’t want to offend your reader
• Want your reader to see you as an authority
• Wat to be, and appear to be, open-minded

Audio: These are some things that you all pointed out in the chat box. But just to kind of go over, you want to avoid bias because you don't want to offend your reader. I saw some mention that being biased in your writing could affect relationships that you have, professional relationships that you are developing over the course of your scholarly career and you definitely want to avoid offending anybody by potentially having bias in your writing

You want your reader to see you as an authority, so lots of you talked about credibility and the importance of backing up all of the arguments you make with strong evidence. And you want to be and appear to be open-minded. We often talk about scholarship as joining a conversation and you don't want to be that one person in the corner that nobody wants to talk to because they are completely only going to look at everything in their own way. Or if they are not going to consider anybody else's ideas or thoughts you're not going to change their mind. You want to be the participant in the conversation, who is taking different ideas and building off of them and debating them in a way that is respectful and clear but also well supported and not emotion-based. These are some really important things about why you want to avoid bias in your writing.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Avoiding Bias: Avoiding Generalizations

People from Tennessee are obsessed with football.

• Many Tennesseans are avid fans of football (Manning, 2009).

Generalizations: Statements that oversimplify a situation or ignore outliers, sometimes called “blanket statements.”

Scholarly Voice

Audio: Here are some examples of bias that I think sometimes it can be confusing by what we mean by bias. And bias sounds like a really bad word but it can be a simple, kind of generalization that you may make without realizing you are making it. This example, people from Tennessee are obsessed with football. Right? Statements like this are suggesting that an entire group of people from an entire state are all going to have the same obsessions or are all going to have the same likes or dislikes. So, instead you can just say that many Tennesseans are avid fans of football. Right? And here we even have this citation to support it. Maybe Manning has taken some kind of survey of everybody who lives in Tennessee and the majority of them have said yes, I’m an avid football fan.

I’m not saying generally just making this blanket statement if you’re from Tennessee you’re obsessed with football, I actually have a citation to support this and I'm being much more careful about how I am presenting that information. I like to think about it as you don't want to be so easily discredited. If I find one person from Tennessee in a situation who is not obsessed with football than that entire sentence becomes moot, it is no longer an arguable sentence because I found this one exemption. Whereas with the second, many are avid fans of football, that is going to be a lot more difficult to disprove particularly when I have that citation that is supporting that claim suggesting somebody has already done the research to back this up.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Avoiding Bias: Using Evidence

Third-grade boys are chronically disruptive, while the girls are always eager to please.

• In Clooney ’ s (2008) study of Kansas City third-graders, 35% of the boys and 68% of the girls were able to complete instructions for a tedious assignment without showing signs of agitation.
• Answer the question “Says who?” or “According to whom?” for your reader.

Using Evidence

Audio: Similarly, third grade boys are chronically disruptive while the girls are always eager to please. And again, you can kind of see how if I can find one third grade boy who is not chronically disruptive then I have completely blown this sentence apart. Instead I can use research and clear citations and then also these very specific statistics to clarify what I actually mean.

So, in Clooney's study of Kansas City third-graders, now I’m being even more specific about the population I'm talking about, 35% of the boys and 68% of the girls were able to complete instructions for a tedious assignment without showing signs of agitation. Here I have really clear information about the way that the gender breaks up in this particular study and I also have a clear idea of what I mean by disruptive or eager to please. Right, you can think about maybe yourself as a third grader or a third grader you know who has been forced to sit down and complete some really tedious task and maybe for a long period of time and how long it will take to start getting bored or start getting antsy. We have a much clearer idea of specifically what we mean when we are saying that maybe girls are able to stay still for a longer period of time or are able to focus on a task for a longer period of time, generally in comparison to boys.

High school administrators should include teachers in their decision making.

• High school administrators should include teachers in their decision making. Doing so, according to Jones (2013), promotes teachers’ acceptance of administrative decisions and policies, as well as ensures administration understands teachers’ perspectives when making decisions.
• Pair or support your own ideas with evidence.

Audio: We also want to avoid bias by providing evidence and this is kind of feeding back into our earlier slides talking about adding that, in order to, at the end of a statement. So here we have High School administrators should include teachers in their decision making. This is going to be my argument. Right? I don’t need to say I think or I believe, but I can just say high school administrators should include teachers. And then I'm going to add some research to support my claim, to support my reasoning for why I believe it is important. Doing so, according to Jones, promotes teacher's acceptance of administrative decisions and policies, as well as ensures administration understands teachers’ perspectives when making decisions. So here it’s clear why I’m making this suggestion. It is not that I am making this blanket assumption that administrators are not including teachers in their decision-making or I am suggesting that administrators have not thought about this themselves, instead I am using some research to back up my point about why this is so important.

Policemen must show sensitivity when communicating with demented people to be more effective public servants.

• Police officers must show sensitivity when communicating with people with dementia in order to be more effective public servants.

Avoid words or phrases that imply judgments related to race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or age

Audio: And another similar example to that, policemen must show sensitivity when communicating with demented people to be more effective public servants. We’ve got a lot of things going on with this sentence that might show some unintentional bias. And so first off instead of saying policemen we could say police officers because there are people of both genders who serve as police, must show sensitivity when communicating with people with dementia, so basically that follows a person first descriptor.

We have several pages maybe Michael can try to find links to our pages about avoiding bias in scholarly writing but there is a practice where unless you know otherwise, unless you have specifically spoken to this group of people, you want to put their personhood before a descriptor or an identity. So, it is people with dementia rather than demented people. There are some exceptions to that and we talk about that in those pages, but in general you want to try to put the person first. So, you want to avoid any words or phrases that imply judgment so policemen might suggest that you are implying that only male individuals serve as police officers same thing with disability. We don't want to think of a disability as coming first. They are people first so we use that people first language instead. That can be tricky so if there are questions hopefully, we can talk about that more.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Avoiding Bias: Understanding Implicit Bias

• Everyone has implicit biases
• Based on evolution
• Knowing what your own biases are will help you avoid them
• Do I personally know anyone who might fall into this category?
• What have my experiences been with individuals who I would categorize this way?
•  Would I make this same kind of statement about a single race, ethnicity, gender, etc.?

Audio: And so finally understanding implicit bias. Implicit bias is something that is becoming more and more apparent in scholarly language and in studies but basically it is a principle that everyone has implicit biases they are based on evolution. Basically, our brains are just not able to make individualized judgments on people as quickly as we would like or as quickly as is sometimes necessary and so instead, we are really good at creating categories and being able to recognize patterns. So, we all have these implicit biases, and sometimes they serve us well and sometimes they are going to impact us in terms of avoiding bias in things like scholarly writing.

The key is, is just knowing what your biases might be because this will help you pay attention to where they might pop up in your writing or in your speaking or in your day to day interactions.

In order to complicate things when you think about maybe assumptions you might make about a larger group you can ask yourself these questions. Do I personally know anyone who might fall into this category? If I am talking about maybe say I am talking about football players in general, do I know anyone who plays football and do I know them well enough that I could maybe make some more individualized comments about that person versus talking about football players in general?

You want to think about what have my experiences been with individuals who I would categorize this way? Have they been predominantly positive, have they been predominantly negative? And think about if these experiences are having an effect on how you are talking or writing about that group of people. And then would you make the same kind of statement about a single race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. because often times it’s similar to that earlier comment about all Tennessee residents being obsessed with football. Right? It’s not a super necessarily a hurtful comment or damaging comment but I think we tend to be much more aware of things like race and gender, religion and so if it is not the kind of thing that you would say about everybody of a certain race or everybody of a certain gender, it is probably a good idea to rethink if you want to make it about this group.

One example I have is, for myself, is looking around at a restaurant and seeing a group of people younger than myself who are all on their cell phones, who are texting on their phones instead of having conversations with each other. I noticed that I could make a quick judgment about them about what their priorities are, about the ways they are interacting with their friends, the way they are interacting with their loved ones but the reality is I have no idea. Maybe they are actually playing a game together and that is interacting with all the people at their table or I don't know what the specific situation is that has them all on their phones rather than talking to each other. Also just because if I see one table was acting that way it does not mean that everybody of that age group is going to behave that way and I would never want to say something like that about a specific race or a specific gender so that is a good thing to take a step back and say I would never say that about all people of one religion are always on their phone, you know? It's a good thing to take that step back and say I am probably being a little bit biased here and I can ask myself these questions to make sure that I do not include that bias in a larger conversation or if I am trying to write something scholarly about millennials or I technically fall into the group of millennials.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Avoiding Bias: Awareness of Background

• Assumptions about professions
• Beliefs about specific populations
• Preference for familiar people/situations
• Over sympathizing

           Know what biases you bring to the discussion. Ask what influences your perception of ideas and situations.

Audio: And then you also, so going into that implicit bias you want to be aware of your own background we have certain assumptions about professions or populations. We have different preferences for people for certain situations for certain people that we find familiar and there’s also the idea of over sympathizing. We could also have biases that are, and it sort of beneficial in a way -- but we want to make sure we are being objective and talk about all groups in a similar manner, not giving favoritism to any one group or population.

You want to know what biases you are bringing to the discussion and then ask yourself what influences your perception of these different situations or of these different ideas and I think a lot of times what I love about working with students from Walden is they are often working on projects that are really important to them that they are very passionate about and then sometimes that’s when these biases can come out whether it is biased towards or bias against any specific group so it's really important to just be aware that we all have those biases and we want to make sure they are not negatively impacting our scholarly writing.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Putting it All Together

What areas of this paragraph could we revise to avoid bias? What changes would you make?

Patients never seem to pay attention to the discharge instructions nurses give them. I think one way we could help alleviate this issue is by providing instructions that are easier to read and more clearly organized. Patients who are in the hospital are often vulnerable (McClean, 2014), and it is so sad to see them fail to understand or follow discharge instructions.

Audio: This is our final chat for the webinar. Putting together all of these different ideas that we’ve talked about, what areas of this paragraph could maybe be revised to avoid bias and what changes would you make? You can either revise the sentences the way we’ve been doing previous chat boxes – you could just point out problematic things or things you might want to change. I will go on mute for about two minutes.

So, I can see a lot of you are picking up on the kind of significance that certain words have and I think that’s really great. We did not even specifically talk about that in this webinar but pointing out that words like never or sad, are kind of weighted, they kind of have this extra meaning that goes along with them and so even though we have that theme -- that might sort of lessen this claim a little bit, the idea that patients never pay attention is probably overly biased, we could find that one patient will pay attention to the discharge instructions and that sentence no longer holds water.

Patients often fail to pay attention to the discharge instructions nurses give them. Dashner (2012) noted this failure, finding that patients failed to follow any or all of their discharge instructions 45% of the time.   I think One way we hospitals could help alleviate this issue is by providing instructions that are easier to read and more clearly organized. Patients who are in the hospital are often vulnerable (McClean, 2014), and hospitals should do what they can to help ensure patients are able to understand and follow discharge instructions.

And then some of you are pointing out. We don't need to have this I think, and it is so sad is also one of those I think statements. So, we can get rid of that wording. So, here's another way that we can revise these with all of these pieces that you have brought up the chat box. Patients often fail to pay attention to the discharge instructions nurses give them. I saw quite a few of you had revised that sentence to be similar to that. Dashner noted this failure finding that patients fail to follow any or all of their discharge instructions 45% of the time. That is obviously added information that you did not have but I noticed that some were commenting on can we add some support for this claim? Can we back it up at all? That is how we're going to do that.

One way hospitals could alleviate this issue, so it is much more clear who this writer is addressing by saying we they are talk about hospitals, is by providing instructions that are easier to read and more clearly organized. Patients who are in the hospital are often vulnerable and hospitals should do what they can to help ensure patients are able to understand and follow discharge instructions. I think that also addresses that the language was almost patronizing. It seemed like the writer was talking down to patients or was talking down to the people that are providing these instructions. So instead we could reword that so it is clear what the recommendation is and why it is important without finding without sounding as if the writer is discounting the hard work that people are doing, that the nurses are doing that patients themselves, there's probably a number of reasons why discharge instructions could get ignored or misunderstood. By re wording this so that we can avoid those charged or weighted words we can avoid sounding overly biased.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Questions: Ask Now or Later

[email protected] •  Live Chat Hours

Learn More:

Check out the modules Avoiding Bias and Clarifying the Actor

Make a Paper Review Appointment!

Assist students in becoming better academic writers by providing online, asynchronous feedback by appointment.

Audio: We do have more time Michael were there any questions that came in during the second half of the webinar that might be helpful to discuss?

Michael: It has been pretty quiet in the Q&A box so we are good to continue on in the webinar.

Kacy: I just want to thank you again for participating and I will hand it off to you Michael to close out.

Michael: Thanks Kacy sounds good. If you have questions after this webinar, feel free to reach out to the writing center with those. We have a general email address here [email protected] that’s an email address that we monitor daily so you can send us a question there and we will get back to you with a response within 24 hours. Also, there are certain times when we offer a live chat service where there will also be a writing instructor like myself or Kacy sitting monitoring a chat box. The hours this is available is on the writing center homepage but if you would like a quick clarification or deal one on one with a person that would be the place to go for that.

Another resource we have that could help you with avoiding bias would be our modules. You could find a link in the middle of this slide, avoiding bias and clarifying the actor. Modules are a situation where you do a bit of reading and learning and you are quizzed on it and if that quiz method is helpful for you and learning that might be helpful to check out.

Lastly we offer paper review appointments, this would be a time where you could schedule to have a writing instructor take a look at a specific piece of writing that you have so we are able to give you one to one feedback tailored to your writing and offer you some opportunities for revisions and ways to improve as an academic writing.

These are all great services and resources for you so I would encourage you all to take advantage of them if you feel that they are necessary.

With that then, again on behalf of Kacy thank you. We are going to wrap up this webinar, I hope everyone has a great night or day. Goodbye.

[End of webinar]

• Previous Page: Practical Tips to Successfully Write in Academic American English
• Next Page: Writing for Social Change: Exploring Perspectives
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.